It’s the same legal precedent America has used for every war since WW2. Regardless of legal limbo about “declaring war”, it’s probably more correct to call it a war than not.
Reminds me of the time when Clinton rebranded wars as ‘peacekeeping operations’, or when Obama rebranded soldiers as ‘advisors’, or the big ones Dubya’s ‘extraordinary renditions’ and ‘enhanced interrogations’.
As long as they call it something euphemistic, no one’s feathers get too ruffled.
Exactly. As it stands, Congress’ legal control of war exists in name only.
We’ve witnessed for decades now that a sitting president can absolutely wage war without congress’ approval, just as long as they don’t actually say the words “the US is at war with [country]”.
I’d be surprised that congress has never attempted to go after the blatant loophole of “what if I just don’t call it a war” - but I can’t remember the last time that Congress successfully enforced it’s control over anything.
I think what frustrates me most is that, even in the knowledge that Congress would authorize this war (and they absolutely would), they’re still too lazy to even have a token vote on it.
That we’re getting fucking reservists killed for this, and they won’t even vote on it, just feels insulting to the people who expected to be training on weekends instead of getting bombed in a desert.
Did he declare war? Myth and fact are about 2 different things.
It’s just a “special military operation” in the middle east. No War to see here.
Except for Trump calling it a war numerous times, and last year him changing the name to the department of war.
But totally not a war. He’s just planning on sending in troops on the ground for funsies.
It’s the same legal precedent America has used for every war since WW2. Regardless of legal limbo about “declaring war”, it’s probably more correct to call it a war than not.
Reminds me of the time when Clinton rebranded wars as ‘peacekeeping operations’, or when Obama rebranded soldiers as ‘advisors’, or the big ones Dubya’s ‘extraordinary renditions’ and ‘enhanced interrogations’.
As long as they call it something euphemistic, no one’s feathers get too ruffled.
Exactly. As it stands, Congress’ legal control of war exists in name only.
We’ve witnessed for decades now that a sitting president can absolutely wage war without congress’ approval, just as long as they don’t actually say the words “the US is at war with [country]”.
I’d be surprised that congress has never attempted to go after the blatant loophole of “what if I just don’t call it a war” - but I can’t remember the last time that Congress successfully enforced it’s control over anything.
Indeed.
I think what frustrates me most is that, even in the knowledge that Congress would authorize this war (and they absolutely would), they’re still too lazy to even have a token vote on it.
That we’re getting fucking reservists killed for this, and they won’t even vote on it, just feels insulting to the people who expected to be training on weekends instead of getting bombed in a desert.
This is you. This is how you think it works.